Contact Us
Categories
- Medical Spas
- medical billing
- No Surprises Act
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Workplace health
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act
- Code Enforcement
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employment Law
- FFCRA
- CARES Act
- Nursing Home Reform Act
- COVID-19
- SB 150
- Acute Care Beds
- Clinical Support
- Coronavirus
- Emergency Medical Services
- Emergency Preparedness
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- KBML
- medication assisted therapy
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Legislative Developments
- Corporate
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Employee Contracts
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Opioid Epidemic
- Sexual Harassment
- Health Resource and Services Administration
- Litigation
- Medical Malpractice
- House Bill 333
- Senate Bill 79
- locum tenens
- Physician Prescribing Authority
- Senate Bill 4
- Chronic Pain Management
- HIPAA
- Prescription Drugs
- "Two Midnights Rule"
- 340B Program
- EHR Systems
- Hospice
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Skilled Nursing Facilities (“SNFs”)
- Uncategorized
- Drug Screening
- Electronic Health Records (“EHR")
- ICD-10
- Mental Health Care
- Primary Care Physicians ("PCPs")
- Urinalysis
- Affordable Insurance Exchanges
- Certificate of Need ("CON")
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Federally Qualified Health Centers (“FQHCs”)
- Fraud
- Health Care Fraud
- HIPAA Risk Assessment
- HPSA
- KASPER
- Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure
- Kentucky’s Department for Medicaid Services
- Office for Civil Rights ("OCR")
- Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG)
- Pharmacists
- Physician Assistants
- Qui Tam
- Rural Health Centers (“RHCs”)
- Stark Laws
- Telehealth
- Accountable Care Organizations (“ACO”)
- Affordable Care Act
- Alternative Payment Models
- Anti-Kickback Statute
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”)
- Charitable Hospitals
- Data Breach
- Electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI)
- False Claims Act
- Fee for Service
- Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act)
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
- Health Professional Shortage Area ("HPSA")
- Hospitals
- HRSA
- Limited Services Clinics
- Medicaid
- Medical Staff By-Laws
- Medically Underserved Area ("MUA")
- Medicare
- Mid-Level Practitioners
- Part D
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”)
- Rural Health Clinic
- American Telemedicine Association (“ATA”)
- Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
- Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (“HEAT”)
- Hydrocodone
- Kentucky Board of Nursing
- Kentucky Pharmacists Association
- Qualified Health Care Centers (“FQHC”)
- Telemedicine
- Webinar
- Agreed Order
- APRNs
- Chain and Organization System (“PECOS”)
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
- Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA")
- Hinchy v. Walgreen Co.
- Jimmo v. Sebelius
- Maintenance Standard
- Overpayments
- United States ex. Rel. Kane v. Continuum Health Partners
- Vitas Innovative Hospice Care
- 2014 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“PFS”)
- 501(c)(3)
- All-Payer Claims Database ("APCD")
- Chiropractic services
- Chronic Care Management
- Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”)
- Compliance Officer
- Compounding
- CPR
- Drug Quality and Security Act (“DQSA”)
- Emergency Rooms
- Enrollment
- Essential Health Benefits
- House Bill 3204
- ICD-9
- Kentucky Senate Bill 7
- Medicare Part D
- Minors
- New England Compounding Center ("NECC")
- Ophthalmological services
- Outsourcing facility
- Physician Compare website
- Re-validation
- Sustainable Growth Rate (“SGR”)
- Texting
- "Plan of Correction"
- Affinity Health Plan
- Appeal
- Arbitration
- Cadillac tax
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Community health needs assessment (“CHNA”)
- Condition of Participation ("CoP")
- Daycare centers
- Denied Claims
- Department of Medicaid Services’ (“DMS”)
- Dispenser
- Division of Regulated Child Care
- Employer Mandate
- Federation of State Medical Boards (“FSMB”)
- Food and Drug Administratio
- Form 4720
- Grace Period
- Health Professional Shortage Areas (“HPSA”)
- HealthCare.gov
- Home Health Prospective Payment System
- Home Medical Equipment Providers
- Hospitalists
- Individual mandate
- Inpatient Care
- Intermediate Sanctions Agreement
- Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange
- Kentucky Medical Practice Act
- Kindred v. Cherolis
- Kynect
- Licensure Requirements
- LLC v. Sutter
- Long-term care communities
- Long-Term Care Providers ("LTC")
- Low-utilization payment adjustment ("LUPA")
- Medicare Shared Saving Program (MSSP)
- Mobile medical applications ("apps")
- Model Policy for the Appropriate Use of Social Media and Social Networking in Medical Practice (“Model Policy”)
- National Drug Code ("NDC")
- National Institutes of Health
- Network provider agreement
- Nonprofit hospitals
- Nonroutine medical supplies conversion factor (“NRS”)
- Payors
- Personal Service Entities
- Physician Payments
- Physician Recruitment
- Physician shortages
- Ping v. Beverly Enterprises
- Power of Attorney ("POA")
- Prescriber
- Qualified Health Plan ("QHP")
- Quality reporting
- Residency Programs
- Social Media
- Spousal coverage
- State Health Plan
- Statement of Deficiency ("SOD")
- Upcoding
- UPS
- “Superuser”
- Advanced Practice Registered Nurses
- Audit
- Autism/ASD
- Business Associate Agreements
- Business Associates
- Call Coverage
- Decertification
- Doe v. Guthrie Clinic
- EHR vendor
- Employer Group Health Plans
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- False Billings
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Group Purchasing Organizations ("GPO")
- Health Reform
- House Bill 104
- Kentucky House Bill 159
- Kentucky House Bill 217
- Licensed practical nurses (LPN)
- List of Excluded Individuals and Entities
- Meaningful use incentives
- Medicare Administrative Coordinators
- Medicare Benefit Policy Manual
- Nurse practitioners (NP)
- Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”)
- Part A
- Part B
- Patient Autonomy
- Patient Privacy
- Personal Health Information
- Provider Self Disclosure Protocol
- Registered nurses (RN)
- Self-Disclosure Protocol
- Senate Bill 39
- Senate Finance Committee Report
- State Medicaid Expansion
- Trade Association Group Coverage
- Abuse and Waste
- Center for Disease Control
- Compliance Programs
- Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan programs (“CO-OPS”)
- Critical Access Hospitals (“CAHs”)
- Essential Health Benefits (“EHBs”)
- Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)
- Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services
- Kentucky Health Care Co-Op
- Kentucky Health Cooperative (“KYHC”)
- Kentucky Primary Care Centers (“PCCs”)
- Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”)
- Medicare Audit Improvement Act of 2012
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- Recovery Audit Contractors (“RAC”)
- Small Business Health Options Program (“SHOP”)
- Sunshine Act
- Employee Agreement
- Free Conference Committee Report
- Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program
- House Bill 1
- House Bill 4
- Kentucky “Pill Mill Bill”
- Pain Management Facilities
- Health Care Law
- Health Insurance
- Healthcare Regulation
McBrayer Blogs
Good News, Providers: A Mere Difference of Medical Opinion Does Not A False Claim Make
FINALLY, some good news for providers related to false claims. In a very important Alabama case, a federal trial court granted summary judgment to AseraCare, Inc., in a False Claims Act[1] action where it had been alleged that the hospice program had knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare for patients who were allegedly not terminally ill. In its opinion, the U.S. District Court ruled that the Government may not prove falsity for purposes of the False Claims Act based solely upon the opinion of one medical expert who disagrees with the certifying physician and the patient's treating physicians about whether the medical records reported eligibility for the hospice benefit. In a ruling that all health providers can cheer, the court held that "[a] mere difference of opinion between physicians, without more, is not enough to show falsity."[2]
[1] 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733
[2] United States v. AseraCare, lnc., No. 2:12-CV-245-KOB (MD
Alabama March 31, 2016) at 2.
In this False Claims action, the government alleged that AseraCare submitted false claims to Medicare by certifying patients as eligible for patient care who did not have a prognosis of a life expectancy of 6 months or less if the terminal illness runs its course. To demonstrate that the claims for 123 patients were false, the government relied upon the testimony of its one medical expert and the patients' medical records. The government's expert testified that based on his clinical judgment, the sample of 123 patients at issue were ineligible for patient care. After a 10 week trial, a jury found that AseraCare submitted false claims for 104 patients during all or some of their hospice stays. The trial court overturned the verdict, finding the jury instructions to be flawed because they did not specify that the False Claims Act requires proof of an objective falsehood, not a mere difference of medical opinion. In the March 31, 2016 ruling, the Court found that the government failed to point to any admissible objective evidence of falsity to make its case. The Court stated that "allowing a mere difference of opinion among physicians alone to prove falsity would totally eradicate the clinical judgment required of the certifying physicians."[1] In this case, AseraCare's medical experts and the Government's medical experts looked at the patient records but came to different conclusions about the patients' eligibility for hospice. Fortunately for the hospice programs, the Court found that the Government couldn't prove falsity as a matter of law because it offered only a difference of opinion about which reasonable minds could differ.
This is good news for hospice providers, as CMS and the Office of lnspector General are focusing on the eligibility status of hospice patients whose hospice care has extended past the 6 month mark. This is also good news for healthcare providers everywhere, as a ruling in the other direction would have led to increased False Claims Act liability for providers that make decisions based on their own medical judgment and good faith within their practices. Such a scenario is frightening at best. Finally – some good news! For more information on this case and how the ruling may affect False Claims Act actions going forward, contact the attorneys at McBrayer.
Lisa English Hinkle is a Member of McBrayer. Ms. Hinkle chairs the healthcare law practice and is located in the firm’s Lexington office. Contact Ms. Hinkle at lhinkle@mcbrayerfirm.com or (859) 231-8780, ext. 1256, or reach out to any of the attorneys at McBrayer.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.
[1] Ibid. at 5